Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 2 <br /> July 26,2016 <br /> Chair Johnson opened the public hearing. ,r-•� <br /> Adam Pramann, 18514 Olson Street NW, applicant—introduced himself. Chair Johnson <br /> asked him if he had any concerns with the conditions. Mr. Pramann stated that the <br /> conditions were acceptable. <br /> There being no further public comment, Chair Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> The Board of Adjustments reviewed the five criteria for the variance requests as follows: <br /> 1. Is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance. <br /> Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Nicholas <br /> that the request meets Criteria#1. Motion carried 6-0. <br /> 2. Is consistent with the City of Elk River comprehensive plan. <br /> Motion by Commissioner Konietzko and seconded by Commissioner Thiel that <br /> the request meets Criteria#2. Motion carried 6-0. <br /> 3. The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the <br /> zoning ordinance <br /> Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Nicholas <br /> that the request meets Criteria #3. Motion carried 6-0. <br /> 4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a <br /> consequence of the petition's own action or inaction. <br /> Motion by Commissioner Konietzko and seconded by Commissioner Feinstein <br /> that the request meets Criteria#4. Motion carried 6-0. <br /> 5. The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br /> Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Crook <br /> that the request meets Criteria#5. Motion carried 6-0. <br /> Motion by Commissioner Konietzko and seconded by Commissioner Larson-Vito to <br /> approve the request by Adam Pramann, Case No.V 16-05,based on the finding that <br /> all five criteria can be met, and the following reasons: <br /> 1. The general purpose and intent of the ordinance are met. <br /> 2. The property has a land use of residential and the use is consistent with the <br /> comprehensive plan. <br /> 3. The proposed use is reasonable and is permitted in the zoning ordinance. <br /> 4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not <br /> a consequence of the petitioners own action or inaction. <br /> 5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br />